20071120Intervenor Funding Petition.pdf

LAW OFFICE OF
KEVIN B. HOMER
1565 SOUTH BOULEVARD
P.O. BOX 51015
IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO 83405-1015
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-MAIL KBH(gKHOMERLAW.COM
KEVIN B. HOMER -- IDAHO STATE BAR. NR. 2901 DARLENE BONKOSKl, LEGA ASISTANT
November 19, 2007
Re:
c:-i
i- __-ie;rn~CI",L(" C) t\)0-- 0;?~
Idaho Public Utilties Commission Case Nr. PAC - E 07-05 3::-;'
Application of Pacificorp d//a Rocky Mountain Power ~(" c:
Application for Intervenor Funding for Timothy Shurt, Interve1ior (.1
Att: Ms. Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702-5983
Dear Jean,
Than you for your couresy when I called on the phone earlier this afernoon. As you
instrcted me, I am enclosing for filing one original and seven (7) copies of the Application for
Intervenor Funding on behalf of Timothy Shurz in the case identified above. Even though you
didn't specify that one was required, I am also enclosing an electronic copy in Microsoft Word
format on a CD-ROM.
Than you sincerely for your help durng this case. I look forward to thaning you in
person someday.
Sincerely yours,
. Enclosures: Application for Intervenor Funding (original plus 7 copies)
. CD-ROM copy (Microsoft Word 97 format)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
KEVIN B. HOMER, ESQ. - State Bar No. 2901
1565 South Boulevard
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
Telephone: [phone]
e-mail: kbhØ1khomerlaw.com
Attorney for Timothy Shurtz,' Intervenor
AH to: l 6
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF PACIFICORP d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN )
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO )
IT IS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES )
)
Case Nr. PAC-E-07-05
APPLICATION FOR
INTERVENOR FUNDING
(TIMOTHY SHURTZ, Intervenor)
Timothy Shurtz, an intervenor in this case, pursuant to Rules 161-170 of the Idaho Public
21 Utilities Commission Rules of Procedure, hereby applies for intervenor fuding with regard to his
22 paricipation in this case. The numbering of the sections below corresponds to the numbering set
23 out in Rule 162, IPUC Rules of Procedure.
24
25 Rule 162.01: Itemized List of Expenses. Timothy Shurz incured the following expenses
26 for which he seeks reimbursement:
27 (a) Legal Fees:$ 8,500.82 (see attached itemization-Exhibit "A")
28 (b) Travel Costs:$ 134.60 (see attached itemization --Exhibit "B")
29 (c) Reproduction and postage costs:$ 35.00
30 (d) Timothy Shurz's own time:$ 3,350.00 (see attached itemization - Exhibit "C")
31 Total reimbursement sought:
32
33
34
$12,019.92
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 1
ORIGINp\L
1 Rule 162.02: Statement of Proposed Findings:
2 Timothy Shurz requests that the Commission adopt the following finding with regard to
3 this application for intervenor funding:
4 Proposed Finding: The Commission has reviewed the Application for Intervenor Funding
5 filed by Timothy Shurz, who petitioned to intervene on 18 July 2007, and who was granted
6 intervenor status in this case. The Commission finds that Mr. Shurtz did contribute in a significant
7 maner to the overall outcome of this case. Mr. Shurz paricipated in the fact-finding discovery
8 process-in paricular with regard to the issues of whether Rocky Mountain Power's reduced
9 overhead expenses (e.g. through legislated ta relief and fallng natural gas prices) were being
10 reflected in the Company's rate increase request. Mr. Shurz personally visited the Company's
11 four service centers in the service area to determine whether the Company was adhering to the
12 requirement of making the required rate information etc. readily available to the public. Mr.
13 Shurz contacted several newspapers and television stations in the service area, at least thee of
14 which ran significant news stories on the rate case at least in par as a result of Mr. Shurz's
15 efforts. In addition to these efforts to make the general public more aware of the issues behind the
16 rate request, Mr. Shurz acted - albeit informally but stil effectively - as the only "lay citizen"
17 intervenor in the case. He paricipated in every public meeting and hearing. He paricipated
18 actively in the settlement negotiations, particularly with regard to the ROE issues. He is entitled
19 to intervenor fuding. He has submitted a timely and complete Application for Intervenor
20 Funding, in which his expenses--including the fees charged by the attorney he retained to assist
21 him in the case-are properly itemized. The Commission has reviewed those expenses and finds
22 them to be reasonable. The Commission therefore awards intervenor fuding to Timothy Shurz
23 in the amount of Twelve Thousand Nineteen and 92/100 Dollars.
Shurz -- Intervenor
Applic,ation for Intervenor Funding -- Page 2
1 Rule 162.03: Statement Showing Costs. Timothy Shurz states the following in.support of
2 the Rule's requirement (Rule 162.03) of a statement showing that the costs incurred (and the
3 fuding requested to repay those costs) are reasonable in amount:
4 (a) Legal Fees: His attorney's normal hourly rate is $150.00 per hour. His attorney has
5 twenty six (26) years' experience practicing business law in Idaho. The rate of$150.00 per hour
6 is conservative for an attorney with that experience. Because of the complexity of this case,
7 (b) Travel Costs: His mileage costs are calculated at the rate of $0.20 per mile, which he
8 believes to be a reasonable rate and below the cost approved by the IRS and the Idaho State Tax
9 Commission. His attorney's travel expenses are calculated at the same rate, and are included in
10 the attorney's statement of fees and expenses.
11 (c) Reproduction and Postage Costs: His costs of copying and mailng documents send to
12 all paries are based on the actual cost to him. His attorney's costs are calculated similarly and set
13 out separately in the attorney's statement of fees and expenses.
14
15 Rule 162.04: Explanation of Cost Statement/Statement of Financial Hardship. Timothy
16 Shurz has been required to finance all of his involvement in this case out of his own personal
17 finances and household budget. He is employed at the Idaho Supreme potato processing plant in
18 Firth, Idaho, where he is paid by the hour (approximately $10.00 per hour). He does not have any
19 other source of income. He has become involved in this case (and in other electric rate cases in
20 the past) because of his childhood memory of "the power company" shutting off the power to his
21 parents' home, and he is deeply emotionally committed to ensurng that huge electric companies
22 and utilities recognize that the ordinary consumers (like himself) have budget problems that are
23 even greater - and felt much more deeply, on a personal level-than the budget problems of which
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 3
1 the Company has complained in this case. His involvement in this case represented a huge
2 expenditure of time for him, as well as a significant financial investment and a significant financial
3 commitment to his attorney. He did not become involved as a method of supplementing his
4 income; indeed, unless the Commission were to award the entire allocated investor fuding pool to
5 him alone-which he does not expect-it would have been financially wiser for him to ignore the
6 rate case and simply work overtime hours at his regular job.
7
8 Rule 162.05: Statement of Difference. Timothy Shurtz was involved in this rate case in a
9 way, and from a perspective, that differed materially from the Staff and from the other
10 intervenors-even though he acknowledges that, ultmately, he agreed to align himself with the
11 staff s recommendations and sign the settlement stipulation.
12 (a) Street Lighting issue. His initial position regarding street lighting, and the effect that
13 the proposed rate change would affect the individual consumer, was that the rate change for street
14 lighting constituted a "hidden charge" that would be passed on to consumers. He acknowledges
15 that that perspective changed slightly through negotiations, and that he ultimately agreed to the
16 proposed Stipulation, although he continued to be vocally concerned about the effect of such
17 actual or possible hidden charges to the individual consumer rate payers.
18 (b) Personally checking service centers. To the best of his knowledge, Mr. Shur was the
19 only pary (including staff) who actually personally visited the Company's various service centers
20 to determine whether the required public disclosure information was actually available to the
21 public.
22 (c) Raising issue of tax relief legislation. Mr. Shurz was the only pary (including staff)
23 which raised the question of how-and how much-Idaho's recent ta relief legislation had
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 4
1 benefited Rocky Mountain Power and, therefore, why the Company did not reflect that reduced
2 operating expense when requesting its rate increase. Simîlarly, he raised the question ofthe
3 reduced cost of natural gas and why that savings was not being passed on to the consumer rate
4 payers~an issue which he understands was also not championed by staff.
5 (d) Acknowledges ultimate alignment with staff. Mr. Shurz acknowledges that he did
6 ultimately align with staff in agreeing to sign the stipulation. To do otherwse would have
7 constituted a needless waste of resources for the numerous parties involved, and he does
8 acknowledge readily that he believes that the Commission's staff did an admirable job of handling
9 this case.
10
11 Rule 162.06: Statement of Recommendation.
12 This rule requires "a statement showing how (Timothy Shurz's) recommendation or
13 position addressed issues of concern to the general body of utility users or consumers."
14 Response: Tim Shurz was the only intervenor who appeared in this case as an individual
15 consumer / rate payer. (He acknowledges that EICAP appeared on behalf of a class of consumers,
16 and that AARP was involved in the same maner by testifying about the effect of the rate change
17 on senior citizens; he agrees that their input into the case was also valuable.) He was able, from
18 that perspective, to view the case as it would affect him and his family and household personally.
19 He serves on the City Council of Firth, a town of a few thousand people in Bingham County; all
20 the electric power for that city, as well as for the individual residents and their homes, is supplied
21 by Rocky Mountain Power, and so his insights, concerns, data requests, and arguments were
22 shaped by that perspective of recognizing how increased electrical costs to a municipality could
23 flow though to its residents (for example, the issue of street lighting).
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 5
1 His involvement-paricularly his contacting several newspapers and all the television
2 stations in the area and alerting them to the issues raised by the rate case-brought the case to the
3 attention of perhaps literally tens of thousands of persons who might otherwse either have not
4 known at all about the case or at least might not have paid any more than passing attention to it.
5 (The Post Register, for instance, featured the rate case with a full color picture on the front page of
6 its main edition published just three days before the public hearings in Rigby and Grace.)
7
8 Mr. Shurz's position addressed issues that were relevant to "the general body of
9 consumers"~i.e. the ordinary household consumer customer of Rocky Mountain Power. As the
10 testimony at the hearings brought out, those consumers had been accustomed to (and many
11 testified that they had come to rely on) the BP A credits to make their electric bils manageable.
12 Mr. Shurz's argument and testimony-to the effect that the Company's request to raise rates on
13 the heels of the loss of that BP A credit, and in the face of the Company's reduced natural gas bils
14 and reduced propert tax expenses, amounted to the Company's apparent disregard of the effect of
15 the increase on its ran and file customers.
16 Mr. Shurtz raised two issues which were clearly and exclusively for the benefit of the
17 typical consumer customer of the Company:
18 · The issue of whether the Company was in fact giving actual notice to its rate payer customers
19 concerning the rate increase request and the facts behind that increase. In that testimony, he
20 raised these issues and made these arguments:
21 (a) Notice of public workshops and hearings should be given by the company in a way
22 that would guarantee that the customers receive and see the notice.
23 (b) The proposed customer/rate payer notice could and should be individualized
Shur -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 6
1 and specific, outlining for that individual consumer exactly how the proposed rate
2 increase would aflect the consumer.
3 (c) This individualized notice should also reflect the "hidden" costs that are passed on to
4 rate payers through municipal charges.
5 · Second, Mr. Shurz raised the question of whether the Company should not be required to
6 make the functions of paying utilty bils and obtaining information from the Company easier
7 for the general consumer customers, paricularly those on lower incomes or with restricted
8 mobilty.
9
10 Finally, Mr. Shurz's involvement will, he hopes, have this effect on the Commission: he
11 hopes that the Commission, through his involvement and paricularly through this Application for
12 Intervenor Funding, wil recognize just how hard and how expensive it is for a typical consumer
13 utilty customer to get involved to any significant extent in a rate case. Even if the intervening
14 customer does not hire legal counsel, stil the hours (in his case, literally dozens of hours) that the
15 intervenor is required to spend to become knowledgeable about the case make intervention almost
16 completely prohibitive. In the vernacular, there is a steep "learning cure" that simply has to be
17 worked through in order for any intervenor-whether an individual like Mr. Shurtz or an
18 organization like the area community action parnerships-to be able to "compete" intellgently
19 and effectively with the Company's well-educated lawyers who handle these cases for a living-
20 and who make a handsome living doing so. Mr. Shurz was willng to make that sacrifice in this
21 case, but he cites the fact that he was the only individual intervenor as proof that it is difficult for
22 individuals to intervene simply because they canot afford to. (That is the irony of the situation:
23 the Company, which is well-bankolled, petitions to raise it rates, and the individual customers-
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 7
1 who are already strggling to pay their utilty bils-simply canot afford to object effectively to
2 the proposed rate increase because doing so requires such significant commitments of both time
3 and money.)
4
5 The obvious solution to that dilemma, of course, would be to make more money for
6 intervenor fuding available-and to ensure that that intervenor fuding is awarded to those
7 intervenors who have truly personally sacrificed in order to intervene. Mr. Shurz hopes that his
8 intervention will bring the appropriateness of that solution even more to the forefront. And
9 certainly a second, and equally important, solution to that irony is that the Commission's staff
10 continue to do what it did so well in this paricular case: namely, to see itself as the watchdogs and
11 whistleblowers working on behalf of those rate payers who have not intervened but who are
12 nevertheless very definitely affected by any proposed rate increase. The professionalism with
13 which Staff fulfilled that role in this case is the primary reason why Mr. Shurtz, after pursuing his
14 own specific goals in the case, (and those of his unoffcial "class" - the general household
15 consumers of whom he was an unofficial representative), agreed with Staffs recommendation to
16 settle the case.
17
18 Rule 162.06 Statement Showing Class of Customer. Although he was not offcially acting
19 with authority as a representative of any class of persons, Mr. Shurtz was the only individual
20 intervenor in the case, and he therefore took the position of all similarly situated individual
21 customers - who, as explained immediately above, were prohibited from intervention because of
22 the complexity and/or expense of the intervention process.
23
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 8
1
2 CONCLUSION.
3
4 For all the reasons set forth in this Application for Intervention Funding, Timothy Shur
5 applies to the Commission for intervenor fuding in the amount of$12,019.92
6
7
8 Respectfully submitted 19th day of November, 2007.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Kevin B. Homer
Attorney for Timothy Shurz, Intervenor
16
17
18
Shurtz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 9
EXHIBIT" A"
ITEMIZATION OF ATTORNEY'S FEES
The following is a transcription of the computerized time and biling records kept by the
bookkeeper for Kevin B. Homer, Attorney at Law, with regard to the time spent for Timothy
Shurz in the Rocky Mountain Power rate case. The data entered below are a complete and
accurate recital of all the entries on the computerized statement prepared and delivered to Timothy
Shurz (which otherwise canot be directly converted to e-mail format for puroses of distributing
to all paries, etc.) on this case.
Date
28 June
13 Sept
20 Sept
21 Sept
25 Sept
26 Sept
27 Sept
28 Sept
10 Oct
15 Oct
19 Oct
23 Oct
29 Oct
30 Oct
1 Nov
2 Nov
4 Nov
5 Nov
12 Nov
Work Done (all work in 2007)
Telephone conference with Tim - discussed details of case
Phone conference with Tim re: Tim's compliance inspection tour
of service centers, other aspects of objections - public notice issues, etc.
Review of Tim's notes and drafts of proposed Testimony
Telephone conference with Tim re: proposed Testimony
Review and revise proposed written testimony; conference with
Tim to review and make fuher revisions, etc. (11 :00 - 7:00)
Preparation of final draft of Tim's written Testimony
Phone call to Jean Jewell at IPUC re initial revision of testimony per
Rule 231;
Letter to Jean Jewell;
photocopying, assembling, mailng copies of all docs for all paries, etc.
Detailed revision of Written Testimony per Rule 231;
conference with Tim to sign revised draft of Testimony;
e-mail and photocopy, mail to all paries and Commission, etc.
Phone call from Justin Brown at Rocky Mountain
Conference with Tim re: responses to Rocky Mountain Power's
First Set of Data Requests.
Preparation of Responses to Rocky Mountain Power Data Requests
Phone conference with Rexburg Standard Joural newspaper reporter
Preparation of Summar of Position for Rigby and Grace public
hearings; conference with Tim to review draft ofSurar.
Two phone calls from Tim; revision of Summary of Position;
preparation and printing of final draft;
attend public hearing in Rigby
Phone call from Tim; attend public hearing in Grace
(tota time: 4:30 - 10:30)
Paricipate in telephone settlement conference
Review interim draft of proposed Settlement Stipulation;
e-mail to Tim.
Phone call with Tim; e-mail to Justin Brown; review and sign draft
of settlement stipulation;
e-mail and fax signature on stipulation to Commission, etc.;
two telephone calls with Commission.
Initial work on Application for Intervenor Funding
Time Spent
0.5
0.3
1.2
0.7
8.5
2.6
3.4
3.0
0.1
0.6
5.0
0.3
3.7
1.6
4.0
6.0
1.1
0.3
0.75
2.7
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 10
14 Nov
15 Nov
Confwith Tim to verify Tim's expenses for Application, etc. 0.7
Work on Application for Funding; draft components for Statementsrequired by Rules of Procedure. 2.6
Work on Application; compilng and tabulating Tim's time spent, etc. 2.0
Final work on Application; compiling and confirming attorney time spent,
expenses and costs advanced, etc.; e-mail to all parties; overnight mail toCommission, etc. 3.7
18Nov
19Nov
Total time spent:
Biled at regular hourly rate: $150.00/ hour
(55.35 hours x $150.00/ hour = $ 8,302.50)
Costs advanced:
27 September:Postage 18.35
27 & 28 September -
& 19 October Copying costs 40.00
190ctober Postage 40.22
19 November Postage 18.35
Travel costs to attend hearings:
4 September Rexburg
30 October Rigby
1 November Grace
81.40
Tota out-of-pocket costs and costs advanced:$198.32
Total attorney fees and costs advanced biled to Timothy Shurz:
Fees: $ 8,302.50
Costs advanced: 198.32
Total: $ 8,500,82
Shurtz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 11
Date
4 Sept.
30 Oct.
1 Nov.
Sep-Nov/07
EXHIBIT "B"
ITEMIZATION OF TRAVEL EXPENSES
(COSTS INCURRD BY TIMOTHY SHURTZ)
Location of meeting, etc.
Rexburg -- public information meeting
Rigby -- public hearing
Eastern Idaho-to visit four service centers
Idaho Falls - for conferences with Kevin Homer
Miles traveled
100
80
293
200
Total miles traveled
Mileage reimbursement requested: 673 miles x $ 0.20 I mile-
673 miles
$ 134.60
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 12
Exhibit "C"
ITEMIZATION OF TIME SPENT BY TIMOTHY SHURTZ
The following is a transcription of personal records, journal entrìes, calendar notes, and other time
records showing the actual time spent by Timothy Shurz in his capacity as an Intervenor in this
case.
Date Work Done (all work in 2007)Time Spent
28 June 2007 Talked to Randy Laube about case for 20 minutes 0.4
28 June Retained lawyer, Kevin Homer; discussed case for 30 minutes 0.5
11 July Draft petition for intervention - mail to Commission 1.027 July Telephone conference with Scott Woodbur 0.127 July Research on case 2.027 July Telephone call to Randy Budge - left voice mail 0.128 July Additional research and preparation 2.030 July Telephone conference with Kevin Homer 0.230 July Telephone conference with Eric Olsen, Esq. 0.530 July Offce conference with Kevin Homer 2.231 July Read testimony from case 2.01 August Read testimony from case (McDougal) 2.5
2 August Additional research in McDougal's testimony 1.03 August Read additional research materials for case 4.0
6 August Work on case - reviewing case materials, testimony, etc. 1.7
8 August Additional work on case - review and research, etc. 2.1
9 August More work on case (reading testimony, etc.) 1.610 August Additional reading 1.412 August Research on case 2.7
13 August More research; review of testimony, formulating questions, etc. 1.7
15 August Work on case; additional reading 1.217 August Additional research 0.419 August Study for case 1.6
21 August More study, research, reading, etc. 1.722 August Study for case 1.023 August Study for case 2.324 August Studying materials 1.625 August Work on case 1.4
26 August More study for case; reading additional research information 2.1
27 August Study; reviewing research, etc. 2.329 August Research 1.7
30 August More work on case; study, new research, etc. 1.9
31 August Study; additional research, notes, etc. 2.0
3 September Read materials for case, prep for meeting in Rexburg 2.6
4 September Additional preparation; attend public hearing in Rexburg 3.3
5 September Review notes from Rexburg hearing, more study 1.7
Shurtz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 13
Exhibit "C," continued - page 2
Time spent by Tim Shurtz, Intervenor
6 September More study; begin compilng notes, ideas, etc. for written testimony 1.3
8 September Research; more work on ideas for written testimony 1.1
9 September Study additional case materials 1.0
10 September Prepare wrtten testimony; initial draft, review of notes, etc. 3.2
11 September More work on testimony; reviewing other witnesses' testimony, etc. 2.7
12 September Detailed work on testimony; review and revision; more research 3.7
13 September More work on testimony, review more materials for case, etc. 4.1
14 September Intense work on testimony, more study on issues, etc. 3.3
15 September Work on testimony, prep for other involvement at hearing 3.016 September Work on testimony 3.3
17 September Work on testimony, other research 3.0
i 8 Sept Work on testimony; review of possible additional testimony issues 2.7
19 Sept More work on testimony; review of other witnesses' testimony 1.5
20 Sept More work on testimony, compiling notes, etc. 1.521 Sept Work with Kevin 2.1
22 Sept Prep to work in field, make visits to centers, etc. 1.323 Sept Work in field; traveling to centers 4.628 Sept Read testimony from Staff 2.3
29 Sept Reading more testimony from staff, other intervenors 2.1
30 Sept More review of testimony from other witnesses 1.7
2 Oct Review of testimony from other intervenors, witnesses 1.93 Oct More review and reading 1.3
4 Oct Review of materials 0.7
5 Oct Read testimony and data requests 2.1
6 Oct More review of data requests and responses from other paries 2.9
7 Oct Review of requests and responses 1.98 Oct Review of requests and responses 2.6
10 Oct Work on initial notes for data requests, etc. 0.511 Oct Notes for initial work on data requests 1.312 Oct Initial work on preparing data requests 2.1
13 Oct More work on data requests 2.7
14 Oct Data requests-review and revision 1.9
15 Oct Work on preparing case for hearing, etc 2.117 Oct More work on preparing case 0.719 Oct Research, compiling notes, prep for hearings 1.1
22 Oct Contacting media (newspapers, radio stations, etc.) 2.3
23 Oct More work contacting newspapers, etc. 2.6
24 Oct More contacting media rep's, Spanish station, etc. 1.1
26 Oct Began reading rebuttal testimony from Rocky Mountain 2.727 Oct More time spent reading rebuttal testimony 3.9
28 Oct More review of Rocky Mountain testimony 3.8
29 Oct Detailed review of Rocky Mountain testimony 1.6
30 Oct Attended hearing in Rigby, discussed settlement with Staff 5.0
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 14
Exhibit "C," continued - page 3
Time spent by Tim Shurtz, Intervenor
31 Oct
1 Nov
2 Nov
3 Nov
5 Nov
Talked to Staff about settlement; confwith Kevin Homer; research. 2.0
Attended hearing in Grace; discussed settlement with Staff. 6.5
Review of e-mails re settlement; discussed settlement with Kevin Homer 1.7
Review of final settlement e-mail proposal from staff, Kevin Homer 0.3
Telephone call with Kevin Homer confirming settlement authority 0.2
Total time spent by Timothy Shurz:167.5 hours
Note to Commission on application for reimbursement of time spent by Timothy Shurz:
Regarding calculation of an "hourly rate": Timothy Shurtz suggests, respectfully, that if
his time were to be reimbursed at an hourly rate, the rate of $20.00 per hour would be fair and
appropriate. Therefore, a total reimbursement to be paid back to him for his time spent in
researching and preparing his case would be as follows:
167.5 hours x $20.00 1 hour = $3,350.00
Timothy Shurz recognizes that there is no specific statutory or administrative provision
authorizing direct reimbursement of an intervenor's time spent in being involved in the case;
however, he suggests that the Commission should keep the foregoing number in mind, in addition
to his out-of-pocket expenses, travel expenses, and lawyer's fees, when setting the total amount of
intervenor fuding to be awarded to him.
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 15
VERIFICATION OF EXPENSES BY INTERVENOR
State of Idaho )
County of Bonnevile )
Timothy Shurz, being first duly sworn, states the following under oath:
1. I am the named Intervenor referred to in this Application for Intervenor Funding.
2. I have reviewed the foregoing Request for Payment of Expenses by Intervenor to
which ths Verification is attached.
3. The expenses which are stated above as being my own personal expenses which I
incured in the process of my involvement in this rate case, are true and accurate.
4. The time records for the time I spent personally in my involvement in this case are
true and accurate.
5. The time records and reimbursement for costs advanced by my attorney appear to be
reasonable to me. Any conferences or telephone conferences which my attorney claims that I
attended or in which I paricipated with him, did in fact occur as he has stated.
6. The foregoing statement of expenses is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
'T1t~
Intervenor
Subscribed and sworn to by Timothy Shurz before me, the undersigned Notary Public of
the State ofIdaho, this 14th day of November, 2007.
. . ~". ~
.i~~:::~;~~" :.., .... ';~.¿(:i):,
It: /..\QTAR ,;'\~Çè~:; : \' r . ."= : _...- : :::: : -.w.. : =
~,;.. PUBL\C /~ ..l
~\_ \r:~~;:;:~:;.:;:.::~;. i
Nit~ilL~~O
Residing in: ¿ak k'dS
My Commission expires: ,5--ß) -/3
Shurz -- Intervenor
Request for Intervenor Funding -- Verification
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I, Kevin B. Homer, attorney for Timothy Shurz, hereby certify that on this 19th day of
November, 2007, I delivered-by electronic e-mail to the e-mail addresses listed below, and by
u.s. Postal Service first class mail to the mailing addresses listed below-a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Application for Intervenor Funding to all the persons identified below.
Delivered to:
DEAN BROCKBANK, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Rocky Mountain Power
201 S. Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
e-mail: dean.brockbanCWpacificorp.com
DATA REQUEST RESPONSE CENTER
PACIFICORP
825 N. E. Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
e-mail: datarequestCWpacificorp.com
JAMES R. SMITH
MONSANTO COMPANY
P. O. Box 816
Soda Springs, ID 83276
e-mail: jim.r.smithCWmonsanto.com
ERIC L. OLSEN, ESQ.
RACINE OLSON NYE BUDGE BAILEY
P. O. Box 1391
Pocatello, ID 83201-1391
e-mail: eloCWracinelaw.net
CONLEY E. WARD, Esq.
MICHAEL C. CREAMER, Esq.
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
P. O. Box 2720
Boise,ID 83701-2720
Shurz -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 17
e-mail: cewCWgivenspursely.com
BRIAN DICKMAN
Manager, ID Regulatory Affairs
Rocky Mountain Power
201 S. Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
e-mail: brian.dickmanCWpacificorp.com
RANDALL C. BUDGE, Esq.
Racine Olson Nye Budge & Bailey
P. O. Box 1391
Pocatello, ID 83201-1391
e-mail: rcbCWracinelaw.net
MAURICE BRUBAKER
KATIE IVERSON
Brubaker & Associates
1215 Fern Ridge Parkway, Suite 208
St. Louis, MO 63141
e-mail: mbrubakerCWconsultbai.com
kiverson($consultbai.com
ANTHONY Y ANKEL
29814 Lake Road
Bay Vilage, OH 44140
e-mail: yanel($attbi.com
DENNIS E. PESEAU, Ph.D.
Utilty Resources, Inc.
1500 Liberty Street S. E., Suite 250
Salem, OR 97302
e-mail: dpeseauCWexcite.com
BRA M. PURDY, Esq.
2019 North 17th Street
Boise, ID 83702
e-mail: bmpurdYCWhotmaiL.com
Dated this 19th day of November, 2007.
Kevin B. Homer, attorney for Timothy Shurz
Shur -- Intervenor
Application for Intervenor Funding -- Page 18